Sunday, December 18, 2016

Many people have said Canada needs “a
moderate proportional voting system.” Sure, Canadians
are not extremists. But what does that mean?

In the 2015 election, the Liberals
famously got 39.5% of the vote. (Actually, they got 39.8% of the five-party
vote.) Under perfect province-wide proportionality, they would elect 40.5% of the MPs,
but First Past The Post gifted them a “winner’s bonus” of 47 seats. In 2011
FPTP gifted Harper a “winner’s bonus” of 40 seats, in a smaller House.

On the votes cast in 2015, if you exclude
Green votes outside BC where they got less than 5%, the Liberals got 40.7% of
the votes, and under perfect province-wide proportionality they would elect 41.7%
of the MPs. In a conventional MMP model with 14-MP regions and counting all
Green votes, the Liberals elect 41.3% of the MPs.

In a more moderate 8-MP-region modelwith 38% top-up MPs, the Liberals elect 42.9% of the MPs, a bonus of
8 seats. Way better than the actual bonus of 47 seats. We can live with that.

The ranked ballot in
single-member ridings is off the table.

One
thing “moderately proportional” does NOT mean is the ranked ballot in
single-member ridings. The multi-party Electoral Reform Committee’s majority
report said the choice is between a good proportional system and
First-Past-The-Post. The Liberal minority report did not even mention the
ranked ballot. The Committee Chair, Liberal Francis Scarpallegia, said “no one
wants the ranked ballot.” A huge step forward.

Justin Trudeau promised to make every vote count.

A
recent Environics poll found 67% of Liberal voters feel the Liberal government
should keep its promise and move forward with reforming Canada’s voting system.
Only 10% disagreed, while 23% were unsure.

Canadians expect him to deliver
this promise in full and on time.

A Scott Simms-inspired model?

In a recent discussion with Newfoundland MP Scott Simms, former
Democratic Reform Critic for the Liberals, Simms agreed 10% top-up MPs was way
too light, but suggested 20%. Lord Jenkins’ Report in the UK recommended
15% to 20% top-up MPs. I cannot imagine two people
more different that Lord Jenkins and Scott Simms, yet they have the same
thought.

For
example, say we give each province 18.7% top-up MPs. Suppose we start by adding
44 top-up MPs to the House, by giving each province 10.5% more MPs and rounding
the number up. The neat feature of these numbers is that they give the Atlantic
provinces the 18.7% we want. The present 32 Atlantic ridings are unchanged,
like the 3 ridings of the Territories. (The 44 new seats includes 3 more MPs
for the Territories.) In the rest of Canada, we make enough of the present ridings
bigger to give each province 18.7% top-up MPs. This adds another 28 regional
MPs, cutting the number of local ridings to 310, each only 10% larger (outside Atlantic Canada). In total
we have 72 regional top-up MPs.

I
have done a simulation. With 32 regions, each with about 11 MPs today, outside
Altantic Canada they will each generally become 10 local MPs and 2 regional top-up
MPs.

Overly
moderate, too moderate for me. And yet, no false majority on the votes cast in 2015. The Liberals
get a bonus of 29 seats, but are 8 MPs short of a majority in the larger House. Interesting to look at.

This model still has many of the benefits of proportional
representation. Liberal voters now unrepresented elect MPs in non-metropolitan Alberta,
Vancouver Island, and the Barrie—Owen Sound region. And under-represented
Liberal voters elect more MPs in Saskatchewan, Calgary, Edmonton, the BC
Interior and North, and the London—Windsor region. Conservative voters
unrepresented in five of Quebec’s seven regions elect MPs, as do those in
Toronto, Peel Region, Northern Ontario, the north half of Metro Vancouver, Vancouver
Island, and Yukon. The Atlantic Provinces have six opposition MPs. NDP voters everywhere
outside PEI are represented. Even Green voters in Vancouver, Manitoba and
west-central Ontario elect MPs, and 14 in total after the Green vote doubles under PR.

And
as Prof. Dennis
Pilon says in this video "Now keep in mind that, when you change
the voting system, you also change the incentives that affect the kinds of
decisions that voters might make. For instance, we know that, when every vote
counts, voters won't have to worry about splitting the vote, or casting a
strategic vote. Thus, we should expect that support for different parties might
change."

“A moderate system”

Prof.
Nathalie Des Rosiers told the Electoral Reform Committee about the Law Commission
Report on Aug. 22 “We were trying to
maintain the good parts of the first past the post system while remedying the
bad parts. It was a moderate report that was aimed at helping Canadians and
Parliament grapple with this issue of electoral reform.” She mentioned
one-third top-up MPs.

Alex Boulerice responded “as the Scottish model
shows, even in the Westminster tradition, changes can be made toward a moderate
proportional voting system. I don't think anyone here would want our system to
become extreme.”

New Zealand’s 2012 MMP Review Commission said “The
system of MMP adopted by New Zealand in 1993 is a moderate form of proportional
representation which seeks to balance two important objectives. One is the
principle of proportionality: that a party’s share of seats should reflect its
share of the nationwide vote. The other is the need to ensure elections deliver
effective Parliaments and stable governments by avoiding an undue proliferation
of very small parties in Parliament.”

Oddly,
the Electoral Reform Committee never heard one witness advocate the full
Jenkins Commission Report, which was only 15% to 20% top-up MPs; deliberately
very moderate. Jenkins wrote:
“In considering the level of Top-up we are required
to balance carefully the potentially competing criteria set out in our terms of
reference. On the one hand the importance of maintaining the link between MPs
and their constituencies and the need to ensure stable government - to the
arguable extent that this requires single party majority government most of the
time - pushes towards keeping the level of Top-up as low as possible. On the
other hand the requirement to deliver broad proportionality would push us
towards a larger Top-up sufficient to correct, or at least substantially to
ameliorate, potential disproportional outcomes on the constituency side.. . . a Top-up of between 15%
and 20% of MPs would do sufficient justice to the three competing criteria
discussed above to be acceptable. . . . . . . . without producing any likelihood of a stagnant and unhealthy
prospect of constant and unchangeable coalition.”

Electoral Reform Committee Chair
Francis Scarpaleggia said on CBC Dec. 7: “I think you would want a moderate system
of proportionality that would still allow for majority governments.” I expect he meant the same thing as Jenkins: a moderate level of proportionality that would still
allow for some single-party majority governments.

So
we can promote moderate proportionality, as long as it is fairly proportional. Many
PR countries have a Gallagher index much less than five. Canada is a moderate
country, after all.

But not too
moderate

But this Scott Simms-inspired model is too moderate for me. Interesting
to look at, though.

Monday, December 12, 2016

The
Electoral Reform Committee acknowledged that the overwhelming majority of
testimony was in favour of proportional representation.

The choice, it found,
is between keeping the present system or adopting a good proportional representation system
that maintains the connection between voters and their MP. That would be the
mixed-member proportional system described in detail here.

An "incremental approach?"

Could
an “incremental approach” to an MMP model work? This trial balloon was floated
by the NDP and Green members of the Electoral Reform Committee.

This is not the best solution. It could mean waiting until 2025 for full implementation. But let's see what it would mean.

There will be a redistribution after the 2021
census. With the growing population of several provinces, I think there should
be 35 more MPs from the growing provinces. Otherwise, the six smaller over-represented provinces will become even more over-represented.

An
incremental approach is to keep the present ridings for 2019, and add 38 MPs to
the House (including 3 extra MPs for
the Territories) as top-up MPs for the 2019 election and the next election
(2023 or earlier).

The
second phase is to adopt, by legislation in 2017, a full mixed-member proportional
representation system, to be implemented along with the recommendations of the
Electoral Boundaries Commissions after the 2021 census, which are likely to
take effect May 1, 2024. Again,
it would have 376 MPs.

MMP-lite

With
only 11% top-up MPs, the first phase is an “MMP-lite” model.

On
the votes cast in 2015, the projected results would have been 189 Liberals, 112
Conservatives, 56 NDP, 13 Bloc, and 6 Greens. By contrast, a fully proportional
model would have elected 153 Liberals, 119 Conservatives, 76 NDP, 17 Bloc, and 11
Greens.

With
376 MPs, that’s a Liberal majority of only 1, compared to the current majority
of 15. To have a stable government, a coalition or accord would be advisable.
Canada has seen ten coalition governments, and six stable Liberal minority
governments. With an election in 2019 on this model, a false majority
government would still be possible, but rather less likely.

Although
this first phase model is poorly proportional, it still has some of the
benefits of a proportional system.

Liberal
voters are better represented in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Southwest Ontario,
with five more MPs from those regions. Strong near-winner candidates in
southwest Ontario like Kimberley Love and Allan Thompson or Katie Omstead or Stephen
McCotter would be in Parliament. So would a strong candidate from the north
half of Saskatchewan like Tracy Muggli or Lawrence Joseph. So would strong
near-winner candidates from Alberta like Matt Grant and Karen Leibovici.

Green
voters are better represented, with MPs like Gord Miller and Bruce Hyer from
Ontario, Jo-Ann Roberts and Frances Litman or Ken Melamed from BC, and Daniel
Green or JiCi Lauzon from Quebec.

Conservatives
in Atlantic Canada elect three MPs instead of being silenced. Conservatives in
Metropolitan Montreal and western Quebec elect four strong candidates like former
MLA and mayor Robert Libman, Moroccan-born lawyer Valerie Assouline, business
community leader Jimmy Yu, and Lebanese-Canadian architect Roland Dick.

New
Democrats would have re-elected Peggy
Nash, Craig Scott and Andrew Cash in Toronto, Paul Dewar in Ottawa, Wayne
Marston in Hamilton, and Jack Harris in Newfoundland, and added two new MPs in Ontario
and two in Alberta.

Second phase

The
second step is legislation in 2017 for a full mixed-member proportional representation
system. It could have more than 33% regional MPs. The only reason to keep the
number to 33% was to follow the present boundaries whenever possible, usually making
three ridings into two. This is irrelevant with redistribution after the 2021
census, which are likely to take effect May 1, 2024.

The
six small over-represented provinces would have temporarily gained a top-up MP, which
ends with redistribution. Since they are over-represented, they are unlikely to
complain. Using 2021 estimated
populations from Statistics Canada, the other provinces will get: 83
for Quebec (close to the 86 they had temporarily), 138 for Ontario (up from the
temporary 134), 49 in BC (up from 46), and 40 in Alberta (up from 38).

Technical
note on projected size of the House:

The “electoral quotient” was set at 111,166 for
the redistribution after the 2011 census, with a national population of 34,482,779. For
the redistribution after the 2021 census the electoral quotient will be
adjusted to reflect average provincial population growth since the previous
redistribution. It might be increased to as much 123,812, but that would make
Quebec over-represented.

It might be 119,180. In that case, the next House
would have 351 MPs, an increase of only 3.85%. With some options, the
six small over-represented provinces would temporarily gain a top-up MP, but
lose that seat with redistribution. Since they are over-represented, they are
unlikely to complain. Quebec,
however, could find it humiliating to gain Top-Up MPs in phase 1, and lose them
all again in phase 2. A risky tactic.

Better to set the size of the next House high
enough that Quebec gets to keep five of its eight temporary top-up” seats. If
it becomes 376 MPs, the quotient is 109,970.

This could be the best model for Canadian democratic proportional representation.

The
Committee found consensus on proportional representation

In Recommendations 1, 2
and 12, the Committee acknowledged that, of those who wanted change, the
overwhelming majority of testimony was in favour of proportional
representation. The Committee recommends that the Government should develop a
new electoral system with a minimal level of distortion between the popular
will of the electorate and the resultant seat allocations in Parliament, but
not sever the connection between voters and their MP.

The Liberal minority report did not even mention the alternative of the ranked ballot in single-member ridings. At the press conference on the filing of the Committee Report, Liberal MP Francis Scarpaleggia (Chair of the Committee) confirmed "no one wants the ranked ballot." A huge step forward.

This
is all consistent with the Mixed Member Proportional system, with open lists
for the regional top-up MPs.

You
have two votes. Your first vote is for your Local MP. Your second vote is for a
candidate for Regional MP. This counts as a vote for that candidate’s party. It
helps elect region-wide MPs for top-up seats.

The Committee’s Report
found consensus onopen-list
MMP.

“Most individuals who favoured reform expressed support for this
system (MMP).” “A majority of participants who advocated for electoral system
change proposed the adoption of an MMP system, suggesting that it maximizes
voter choice.” “Moving to an MMP system would keep the electoral system
relatively simple. The local representation factor seems very familiar and
similar to what [we] know with the current first-past-the-post system. It feels
relatively simple and accessible on the ballot.” “Most respondents to the
e-consultation strongly supported or supported the view that voters should
determine which candidates get elected from a party’s list.”

The Report also discussed the details of MMP
design: “In 2004, the Law Commission recommended
two-thirds of MPs be elected in constituency races and the remaining one-third
be elected from provincial or territorial party lists. The Commission noted
that avoiding increasing the size of the House of Commons was a priority in
determining said ratio.” “One way some countries with MMP systems have
addressed the threat of the election of “fringe” or “extremist” parties is
through the use of thresholds. For example, to be eligible to receive a share
of the party vote seats in New Zealand, a party must garner at least 5% of the
national vote.” Prof. Tanguay noted a built-in kind of threshold with
MMP: “You'd need, probably, at least 10% of votes in
a region to get one of those list seats.” As for the three Territories, “Some
suggested adding a second compensatory MP to each territory to allow for some
degree of proportionality” as the Law Commission recommended in 2004.

Further details are found in the Supplementary
Report of the NDP and Green Party: “(MMP) with 2/3 of the House of
Commons elected to represent direct constituencies, and 1/3 elected as regional
compensatory members.” A group of three ridings will become two larger ridings
each 50% bigger: “As such, since it would not affect current riding boundaries,
a full riding redistribution would be unnecessary.”

The six smaller provinces have 60 MPs, an
average of ten each. Local regions of about ten MPs match Prof. Tanguay’s
comment above. The Hon. Stéphane Dion has advocated regions of similar size, to
prevent creating different political micro-climates in different regions.

An MMP model with 34 local regions, with an
average of 9.85 MPs each for the 335 MPs from the ten provinces, plus six MPs
for the Territories, looks very practical.

Every
region is represented

As Stéphane Dion likes to say “the whole
spectrum of parties, from Greens to Conservatives, must embrace all the regions
of Canada. In each region, they must covet and be able to obtain seats
proportionate to their actual support. This is the main reason why I recommend
replacing our voting system.” And Fair Vote Canada says “we must give rural and
urban voters in every province, territory and regional community effective
votes and fair representation in both government and opposition.”

In all 34 regions, on the votes cast in 2015, voters for all major parties
have a representative. For example, Liberal voters who are not represented today
in Vancouver Island, South and Central Alberta, Northern Alberta, Windsor—Sarnia,
and Barrie—Owen Sound will elect MPs. So will Conservative voters in Atlantic
Canada, Montreal and the western 72% of Quebec, Toronto, Peel Region, Northern
Ontario, the north half of metropolitan Vancouver, and Vancouver Island.

How will regional MPs
operate?

Most
regional MPs will each cover several ridings. Take Saskatchewan as an example.
On the votes cast in October 2015, Liberal voters there would have elected two regional MPs. They might be based in
Saskatoon and Prince Albert, but they would likely have additional offices in
North Battleford and elsewhere, just as MP Kelly Block has offices in
Martensville, Humboldt and Rosetown. This is just the way it’s done in Scotland, where each regional MP normally
covers three local ridings, and holds office hours rotating across them.

Even the Ministry of Democratic Institutions notes “Of
the 34 member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD), Canada is one of only three that continue to use the FPTP system to
elect legislators.” The rest mostly use proportional representation and
have stable majority coalition governments like Germany.

Not my
model

The model I am describing is not my personal
model. I would use more than 33% regional MPs. This is the model I have taken
from the reports outlined above.

Prof. Byron Weber Becker has run the model on his software. It has a Gallagher Index of 2.94, and a Composite Gallagher Index of
4.25.

Looking
at provinces, Ontario shows a Liberal bonus of 3, 1 from the Conservatives, 2
from the Greens. This is because of the Liberal sweep of Toronto, Peel Region and
Oakville, where 52% of the vote gave them all 37 MPs. With only 33%
compensatory MPs, the Liberals get a bonus of 5 MPs there, 3 from the Conservatives, 1
from the NDP, and 1 from the Greens. But another region gives the Conservatives
a bonus, and the other eight regions of Ontario show fully proportional results.

New
Brunswick shows a pattern similar to Toronto: a sweep on 51.6% of the vote,
resulting in a Liberal bonus of 1 MP from the Conservatives. Conversely, the
NDP sweep of six of Vancouver Island’s seven seats means BC shows an NDP bonus of
1 from the Conservatives.

Quebec
is close to perfect: a Liberal bonus of 2 and a Conservative bonus of 1, 2 from
the Greens, 1 from the NDP. In Alberta’s four regions, rounding anomalies give
the Liberals and NDP a bonus of 1 each, 1 from the Conservatives, 1 from the Greens.

What if the Green vote doubles?

Another
way to test whether 33% regional MPs is enough, is to project the outcome if
the Green Party vote doubles, as they expect it would under PR.

A
projection showing their vote doubled from non-voters (everywhere but in Elizabeth
May’s riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands) shows them electing 20 MPs, very close to
the perfect 22 MPs they should elect. They elect MPs in every province
but Newfoundland & Labrador and P.E.I. Again, the sweeps in Toronto and New
Brunswick give the Liberals a bonus of 9 MPs, of which 4 are from the NDP, 2
from the Bloc, 2 from the Greens, and 1 from the Conservatives. Not perfect,
but reasonably proportional.

Which ridings would change?

Every
local region, with about 10 MPs per region, will still have the same number of
MPs as it does today. Those MPs will become 67% local, 33% regional. Wherever
possible, three present ridings will become two larger ridings 50% larger. In
my simulation, I use 16 nine-MP regions, 8 twelve-MP regions, and 7 six-MP
regions. The Boundaries Commissions will make short work of this. Exceptions
will be in only about 14% of ridings, about 49 of the present 338. As well, seven
ridings could be “grandfathered:” the three for the Territories, and four more remote
and aboriginal ridings.

The Law Commission recommended one vital improvement: no closed
lists. All MPs are elected and have faced the voters. If voters for a party are
entitled to elect a regional MP, it will be the party’s regional candidate who
got the most votes across the region.

You
have two votes. With your first vote, you help elect a local MP as we do today.
With the second, you also help elect a few regional MPs: it’s proportional. You
can cast a personal vote for the regional candidate you prefer: it’s
personal.

Could this model use a ranked ballot to elect the local MPs? In most ridings this would make no difference, but it would increase the Liberal bonus to the extent that the Gallagher Index would be 5.93, higher than the target of 5, with a Composite Gallagher Index 6.82. Not recommended.

Technical note

The
calculation for any PR system has to choose a rounding method, to round
fractions up and down. I have used the “largest remainder” calculation, which
Germany used until recently, because it is the simplest and most transparent. In
a 10-MP region, if Party A deserves 3.2 MPs, Party B deserves 3.1, Party C
deserves 2.3, and Party D deserves 1.4, which party gets the tenth seat? Party
D has a remainder of 0.4, the largest remainder. In a region where one party
wins a bonus (“overhang”), I allocate the remaining seats among the remaining
parties by the same calculation.

Appendix - the regions:

My
simulation using this model lets voters elect 221 local MPs and 114 regional
MPs in 34 regions, plus two each from the three Territories.

Sunday, November 20, 2016

Fair Vote Canada’s new Rural-Urban modelcalled for 15% top-up MPs. Can it be
made to work well with only 10% top-up MPs? This lets us keep all the present
riding boundaries, by adding 33 additional MPs.

Yes, and we will have 66 local
single-member ridings for rural and small-urban communities across the ten
provinces. We will need 269 MPs elected from 64 multi-member ridings.

Adding the 33 additional MPs to
top-up the results in each province (plus the three MPs from the Territories)
brings the House to 371 MPs, under this “Rural-Urban + 10% model.” (Adding 10%
means 33 more MPs.)

Rural and small-urban communities can have 66 single local
MPs

My previous simulationassumed 15% top-up seats, room for which would be created by making all
existing ridings 17% bigger. This model included 74 single-MP ridings
corresponding to about 88 single-member seats before reconfiguration. Avoiding
the need for reconfiguration brings us back to 88 seats, but to keep the level
of proportionality the same with only 10% top-up MPs, I have grouped 22 of these into two-member ridings,
bringing the number down to 66.

Better
regional representation

As with any PR model applied to the votes cast in
2015, it gives better regional representation.

Liberal voters will be fairly represented from all
parts of Alberta and Saskatchewan, Vancouver Island and the BC Interior,
Manitoba outside Winnipeg, and southwestern Ontario. So will Conservative
voters in Atlantic Canada, the west half of Quebec, the Greater Toronto Area,
Northern Ontario, Winnipeg, and Metropolitan Vancouver. So will NDP and Green
voters everywhere. And voters will be able to vote for who they want, not just
against who they don’t want.

Perfectly
proportional

The result of my “Rural-Urban + 10%” simulation
on the 2015 votes is almost perfectly proportional. If we had used
province-wide perfect proportionality for 371 MPs, the results would have been:
Liberal 152, Conservative 118, NDP 73, Bloc 17, Green 11. My simulation gives
the Bloc 16 and the Conservatives 119, otherwise perfectly proportional. (Yes,
in six provinces one party gets a one-seat bonus, but they mostly cancel out
nationally.)

With this “Rural-Urban + 10%” model, the larger
number of 2-MP ridings brings the average District Magnitude of the multi-MP
ridings down to 4.2 MPs. That would not be very proportional, except that the
33 additional top-up MPs make the result proportional.

About Me

Although I am a member of Fair Vote Canada's Council at the federal level, the views expressed on this blog are my own.
I have been a lawyer since 1971, an elected school trustee from 1982 to 1994, past chair of the Board of the Northumberland Community Legal Centre, and so on.